The reporting restrictions which protected the identity of the mother of Baby Peter were lifted today after a ruling by a high court judge who said it was a necessary move to maintain public confidence in the judicial system.

The decision by Mr Justice Coleridge to withdraw the protection of anonymity from Tracey Connelly and Baby Peter's stepfather, Steven Barker, followed pressure from several major media organisations, including the BBC, the Mirror Group, and the Times, who argued that this was important to ensure that those who caused the toddler's death were being properly held to account.

Haringey council, which has been heavily criticised for not taking Peter into care despite evidence of repeated non accidental injuries, had made two attempts to keep Connelly's name secret.

But Coleridge ruled that Connelly, 28, and Barker, 32, could be named today in the interests of article 10 of the Human Rights Act, the right to freedom of expression, and in order that the public did not lose faith in the criminal justice system.

He said the case was so notorious that "for the public to be prohibited from learning the identity of the defendants may give rise to considerable public disquiet".

In his judgment he referred to the extreme levels of vitriol that have been directed towards Connelly and Barker on the internet, where despite the strict order banning their identification until now, they were named and pictured some time ago.

One Facebook site which has 68,000 members called for Connelly and Barker to be tortured and hanged and discussion forums about the case of Peter continue to elicit angry responses.

Coleridge said the case had become "iconic in the same way that Victoria Climbié's did".

"The level of press coverage has … included a great deal of vitriol targeted at the defendants …" the judge said.

Peter died on 3 August 2007 after suffering months of torture and abuse at the home where he lived in north London with his mother, her boyfriend, Barker, and Jason Owen, the lodger.

He was on the child protection register of Haringey council and had been seen at least 60 times by professionals, including social workers and doctors, but he was not taken into care.

It can also be revealed today that Owen, who was also convicted of causing or allowing Peter's death, was Barker's older and more dominant brother, a man whom Barker claimed in court had abused him as a child.

The two men had been in trouble long before the death of Peter; they were charged with assaulting their 82-year-old grandmother at her home in Kent in 1995. She claimed they had locked her in a wardrobe to make her change her will. But she died of pneumonia before the case came to trial.

In May, Barker and Connelly were also tried over the rape of a two-year-old girl; he was convicted but she was cleared of a child cruelty charge. They appeared in court under assumed names so jurors did not link them to Baby P.

The measures that were taken reflect the high degree of sensitivity over the case, and the extraordinary and disturbing details that emerged from it.

Initially charged with the murder of her son, Connelly admitted at trial causing or allowing his death in August 2007.

A judge ordered her acquittal on the murder charge due to insufficient evidence about who had been the perpetrators of the abuse. None of the three has ever admitted which one of them was responsible for abuse which resulted in 50 separate injuries on Peter's body, including a fractured spine.

The identification of Connelly in particular as the mother who stood by while her son was repeatedly attacked is likely to lead to further criticism of her.

Although Connelly is already in a prison segregation unit, special measures are being taken to protect her following today's identification. She is serving an indeterminate jail sentence, with a recommended minimum of five years, for causing or allowing Peter's death.

Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of the probation union Napo, said there would be ongoing consequences for the prison and probation services following the naming of Connelly and Barker today: "The naming … is in accordance with the law but at some future date if and when they are released there will be a security issue. Like Ronnie Biggs, Connelly will be pursued by newspapers and her release date and location of her release could well be leaked in the media, this would obviously cause security issues."

Connelly, who has already served nearly two years on remand, could in theory be released in three years' time. But the addition of an indeterminate prison sentence means she will be considered for parole only if it is felt she is no longer a risk to young children.

Lawyers for Connelly may before her release apply for a "Mary Bell order", which will give her a new identity and anonymity if they can prove that her life is at risk.